Sutlej-Yamuna link dispute: The Supreme Court condemned the Punjab government for not constructing the SYL canal
Last Updated on October 5, 2023 by News Desk
The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Punjab government during the hearing of the Sutlej-Yamuna link (SYL) canal dispute condemning it for not constructing its part of the canal.
It also directed the Centre to survey the land allocated to it for the project to estimate the extent of the construction done till now.
“We are concerned with the decree for the construction of the SYL canal in the Punjab portion, as Haryana has already constructed…” and to know “how much has been made and what has been made.” The court ordered.
As per the live law report, the three-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and CT Ravikumar, was hearing the original suit filed by the state of Haryana against the state of Punjab in 1996, in which the court passed the decree in favour of Haryana in 2002 and directed the Punjab government to construct the canal.
The issue goes back to 1966 when the construction of a 211 km long canal like Sutlej and Yamuna was proposed. The proposal was officiated for the first time in 1976 when the Centre issued the notice allotting 3.5 million acre-feet of water to both Punjab and Haryana. Further, in 1981, both states signed a water-sharing agreement for reallocating waters in Ravi and Beas. Though The Haryana government completed its part of construction Punjab’s part remains undone due to political conflicts and pressure in the state.
The bench, during the hearing, expressed their concern and told the Punjab government to find a solution to the problem. It said, “You will have to find a solution. Don’t compel us to find troublesome orders.”
It further ordered the Centre to conduct a survey of the allotted land.
“We would like the Union of India to survey the portion of the land allocated for the project in Punjab to ensure that the land is protected. An estimate can also be made for the extent of construction carried out in Punjab.” It ordered.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the state of Punjab. Senior advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the state of Haryana. Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union of India.
Case title- state of Haryana Department of Irrigation the Secretary v. State of Punjab and Anr.
Written by Shagun Behal
